nanog mailing list archives
Re: BBN/GTEI
From: Karl Denninger <karl () mcs net>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:10:20 -0500
On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:41:54AM +0300, Tuomas Toivonen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 02:41:58PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:None of this has ANYTHING to do with what the customer has purchased - which is TRANSIT TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET. Not just the parts that someone else will pay that same provider to communicate with.CustA - NetA <-> NetB - CustB. Both customer are _buying_ for transit for the whole source-destination path, but are _paying_ only for (in this case) half of it. Customers share the costs, because providing service to each other is considered beneficial. Therefore networks A and B peer if traffic is roughly equal or exchange traffic with settlement fees if not. -- tuomas.toivonen () fishpool fi fishpool creations ltd http://www.kasvua.org/~toivotuo/ http://www.fishpool.fi/
That's your view of the world, but its not reality. Assume CUSTb is a web server, and CUSTa is a T1 connected client. CUSTa sends a TCP SYN, accepts an ACK, and transmits 40 bytes of a URL. CUSTb responds to the SYN, accepts and ACK (3-way handshake) and transmits, in direct response to the URL request, 200KB of data back to the CUSTa. Now, NETb has a net deficit of packets to NETa. NETa says "pay up or else" and demands a settlement from NETb; a settlement which NETb cannot collect on, as NETb has no means of assessing CUSTa, which is the cause of the traffic so generated. NETb says "bite me", correctly perceiving that they should not allow arbitrary people to write blank checks on their accounts. NETa drops peering in response to the "bite me". NETa's customer drops their connectivity contract for a material breach of their agreement (deliberate interferance with their connectivity to NETb) and shops elsewhere. Who just lost by NETas activities here? That's what I thought. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl () MCS Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Current thread:
- Re: BBN/GTEI, (continued)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 27)
- RE: BBN/GTEI - Optical Internet solves asymmetric data flows Bill St. Arnaud (Aug 26)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Deepak Jain (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Robert Bowman (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Robert Bowman (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Paul Vixie (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 26)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 27)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 27)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Karl Denninger (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI steve (Aug 28)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Tuomas Toivonen (Aug 31)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Mike Leber (Aug 21)
- Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Adrian Chadd (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Patrick Greenwell (Aug 25)
- Re: BBN/GTEI Michael Dillon (Aug 21)